EIS - Newspaper and site notices - Environmental Protection Agency

Page 2ART HUR COXpa11icular class 1 of development, namely "Peat extraction which would in volve a new or extendedarea of 30 hectares or more". As a res ult, the Agency requested our Client, by notification dated 18January 201 3, to submit an EIS.It is our view that in relying on the above reason to reach its determination in the EIA ScreeningDecision, the Agency fe ll into error because our Client's activity the subject matter of this IPPCLicence application does not in fact comprise new or extended peat extraction of any area. On thecontrary, as is argued fo r in the High Court Proceedings, the peat extrac tion has continued on broadlythe same footprint of land since 1993 for the lands at Coole, Maine and Ballinealoe, and since 1999on the lands at Clonsura. Thus the reason given by the Agency to carry out an EIA of our Client's peatharves ting acti vity does not apply in this case.Accordingly, it is our advice to our Client and our legal view, supported by Counsel, that the bas isupon which our Client has been required to submit an EIS to the Agency is incorrect.We wish to confirm therefore that the EIS which accompanies this legal submission is beingsubmitted to satisfy the Agency's requirement to carry out an EIA, but strictly speaking is not beingsubmitted in accordance with the Agency's notification to our Client dated 18 January 201 3.Finall y, the within EIS is not meant to be, and should not be taken to be, an acceptance of anyrequirement for planning permission or EIA to be sought or carried out by our Client under planninglegislation, and accordingly is submitted without prejudice to the High Court Proceedings .Yours faithfullyFor inspection purposes only.Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.1Class 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 200 I - 20 12EPA Export 01-08-2013:23:39:20